S1 (FriAM 1-65) - The Psychonomic Society

Posters 4069–4075 Saturday Noon
• INHIBITION IN MEMORY •
(4069)
Arousal Reduces the Directed Forgetting of Words. MICHAEL
MINNEMA & BARBARA J. KNOWLTON, UCLA—We measured
the effect of performing an arousing task on subsequent directed forgetting.
Subjects counted backward from 100 either by sevens (arousing)
or by ones (nonarousing). Subjects then received a list of words
that they were told to remember. In each arousal condition, subjects
were either given a “forget” cue after the first list and were told that
the list was just for practice and that they should try to forget it, or
they were given a “remember” cue and were told that they should try
to remember the list. All subjects were then told that they would receive
a second list and that they should try to remember it. When later
asked to recall all words, subjects in the arousal group showed significantly
less forgetting of list 1 after the “forget” cue, with no difference
after the “remember” cue. Arousal may deplete attentional resources
needed for inhibition of to-be-forgotten information.
(4070)
Directed Forgetting or Directed Remembering? A Comparison of
Remember, Forget, and Incidental Learning Instructions. MARK A.
OAKES, PENNY L. YEE, AVERY RIZIO, JENNIFER SADOWSKY,
TIERNEY BOISVERT, & CECILIA M. MAEYAMA, Hamilton College—Directed
forgetting (DF) cost is observed when a person is instructed
to forget stimuli that have been presented. Previous work on
list method DF has attributed observations of cost to one of two mechanisms:
increased remembering processes (increased rehearsal of
R-items) or forgetting processes (episodic inhibition of F-items). In
contrast, we examine the relative contributions of both types of
processes to the observation of DF cost by comparing performance
between remember and forget instructions with conditions in which
participants receive an incidental memory instruction. The degree to
which performance in the remember condition exceeds performance
in the incidental condition will reflect the contribution of rehearsal
processes, whereas the degree to which performance in the forget condition
falls below the incidental condition will reflect the contribution
of inhibition processes. The magnitude of these effects was also compared
with measures of working memory capacity.
(4071)
Retrieval-Induced Forgetting: Inhibition or Interference? ANDREA
D. HUGHES, University College of the Fraser Valley, ANTONIA
KRONLUND, Brock University, & BRUCE W. A. WHITTLESEA,
Simon Fraser University (sponsored by Bruce W. A. Whittlesea)—Inhibition
as a psychological construct has been used to explain a wide
range of cognitive behaviors including phenomena such as negative
priming, inhibition of return, directed forgetting, and retrievalinduced
forgetting. In general, these phenomena typically show a
decrement in performance, measured by accuracy or reaction time,
relative to a baseline response. Such decreases in performance have
been argued to reflect inhibitory processes which serve to suppress a
response to a stimulus. The central aim of the present research is to
examine the utility of an inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting.
In particular, the experiments reported here demonstrate the
limitations of an inhibitory account, and instead support an
interference-based account of retrieval-induced forgetting.
(4072)
Can Combining Delay and Integration Reverse Retrieval-Induced
Forgetting? JASON C. K. CHAN, KATHLEEN B. MCDERMOTT, &
HENRY L. ROEDIGER III, Washington University (sponsored by
Jason M. Watson)—Previous work has shown that integrative encoding
(Anderson & McCulloch, 1999) and delay (24 h; MacLeod & Macrae,
2001), in isolation, eliminate retrieval-induced forgetting (RIFO). In
the present study, we examined the combined effects of integration
and delay on RIFO using prose materials similar to those in college
textbooks. We obtained reliable RIFO when integration of the prose
115
material was made difficult (by randomizing the presentation order of
the sentences) and when the delay was short (20 min). No RIFO was
observed when the materials were presented in a coherent fashion
(high integration) or when the delay was long (24 h). When these two
factors were combined (i.e., high integration and a long delay), we obtained
retrieval-induced facilitation (replicating Chan, McDermott, &
Roediger, 2006). Thus, the present work helps specify the conditions
under which retrieval induces facilitation and inhibition.
(4073)
On the Persistence and Durability of Retrieval-Induced Forgetting.
BENJAMIN C. STORM, ROBERT A. BJORK, & ELIZABETH LIGON
BJORK, UCLA (sponsored by Robert A. Bjork)—Retrieval-induced
forgetting is believed to reflect inhibitory control processes that reduce
the accessibility of items that interfere with attempts to retrieve target
items from memory. To date, however, very little research has explored
the persistence and durability of the phenomenon. Recently, we have
shown that although retrieval-induced forgetting may make items less
recallable initially, such items will benefit more from future learning
than will items that did not initially suffer from retrieval-induced forgetting.
Here, we report the long-term consequences of repeatedly inducing
and releasing the effect of retrieval-induced forgetting. Our results
suggest that, given the same number of study trials, items that
were intermittently inhibited between study trials were more recallable
after a week delay than were items that were not intermittently inhibited
between study trials. This counterintuitive finding is discussed in
relation to the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting and
the new theory of disuse (Bjork & Bjork, 1992).
(4074)
Is Source Memory Subject to Retrieval-Induced Forgetting? JERI
LITTLE, ELIZABETH LIGON BJORK, ROBERT A. BJORK, & VIEN
NGUYEN, UCLA (sponsored by Elizabeth Ligon Bjork)—Practicing
the retrieval of some items can impair the retrieval of related, but unpracticed,
items—an effect known as retrieval-induced forgetting
(RIF), argued to arise from inhibitory processes (Anderson, Bjork, &
Bjork, 1994). The present research asked whether RIF would occur for
both item memory and source memory—in particular, the identity of
items as well as their location in a display. Participants studied 6 exemplars
from each of 10 categories, with the exemplars presented
three at a time in a triangular formation above their category name.
Participants were then given retrieval practice on 3 exemplars (from
5 categories each) in their previously presented positions. After a
filled delay, both item memory and source memory were assessed,
with preliminary results indicating RIF effects for item memory but
not for source memory, implying that perhaps certain types of information
associated with a given item—such as its location—remain retrievable
even when access to its identity has been inhibited.
(4075)
Individual Differences in Inhibitory Control: RIF, TNT, and OCD.
BENJAMIN C. STORM, MONICA BIRNBAUM, ELIZABETH
LIGON BJORK, & ROBERT A. BJORK, UCLA—Retrieval-induced
forgetting is believed to reflect the lasting consequences of inhibitory
control in memory. According to this account, attempting to retrieve a
target item from memory also activates other items, creating competition,
and requiring that such competing items be inhibited. Similar
control processes have also been argued to play a role in allowing participants
in think/no-think experiments to prevent unwanted memories
from coming into awareness. Subjects in the present research took part
in both a retrieval-induced forgetting experiment and a think/no-think
experiment. If the forgetting observed in the respective paradigms reflects
similar inhibitory control processes, performance on the two experiments
should be highly correlated. The present research also explored
the relationship between performance on these two paradigms
and obsessive compulsive disorder, with the hypothesis that individuals
who experience recurrent, persistent, and unwanted thoughts and
compulsions might have impaired inhibitory control.